t00fri wrote:don't worry, our "physics expert" Hank knows the answer
This condescending tone adds nothing to the discussion. One doesn't have to be a practicing physicist to understand this issue.
chris wrote: One doesn't have to be a practicing physicist to understand this issue.
hot air wrote:Presumably the values used would have a reasonable scientific basis, which would be clearly documented.
Variable stars in general is an area where Celestia might be improved.
But without presenting any physics arguments for such a suggestion, it's "hot air" isn't it? By merely arguing with "numbers of users",chaos syndrome wrote:Well, since no-one's definitively come out and stated that there are no simple relationships between the empirical radius (e.g. as provided in the CHARM catalogue) and blackbody radius, I don't see what's wrong with Hank suggesting that there might be one.
I think many users would find that approach preferable to the simple black-body calculation currently employed.
the radius is 10% larger than predicted by the standard models, in agreement with previous results from well studied double-lined eclipsing binaries.
t00fri wrote:With that I certainly agree. But you must also grant me the professional ability to judge when someone has NOT understood this physics issue and YET continues to produce "hot air" posts. This was not the first time and at some point my patience is simply exhausted. Sorry for this.chris wrote: One doesn't have to be a practicing physicist to understand this issue.
From what I could read from Hank so far, I have serious doubts that he has deeper insight into stellar evolution theory. Despite his many posts, I think he is indeed unable to constructively contribute to the ongoing /physics/ discussion, whether or to which extent a "jigger factor" approach could be justified on a more or less scientific basis.
Code: Select all
Modify "Planet" "Star"
Code: Select all